Last Monday was designated World AIDS Day. U.S. Health Secretary Tommy Thompson, speaking from the AIDS-ravaged continent of Africa, said that it looks like were losing the war against the deadly disease.

Former South African president Nelson Mandela hosted a concert in Cape Town as part of an effort to have AIDS declared a global emergency. Taped messages from Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson were shown.

Sitting near Mandela was Oprah Winfrey. Yes, the same Oprah who in 1987 presciently observed: "Research studies now project that one in five  listen to me, hard to believe  one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years. That's by 1990. One in five. It is no longer just a gay disease. Believe me."

That proved to be nonsense, as did other exhibitions of conventional wisdom on the topic. A 1985 cover of Life warned: "Now, No One Is Safe From AIDS." U.S. News & World Report cautioned: "The disease of them is suddenly the disease of us . . .finding fertile growth among heterosexuals."

The reality is that the major causes of AIDS were, and continue to be, men having sex with men and people injecting themselves with drugs. In that order. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in 2001 fewer than 10,000 Americans contracted AIDS through heterosexual contact.

The total number of annual AIDS cases in the U.S. has declined significantly, particularly between 1995 and 1998. So have the number of unfortunates whove died from the malady.

Even in America, however, all the news isnt so encouraging. Last month a CDC official reported a significant jump in the number of AIDS cases among homosexual men. "To some extent, there is some prevention fatigue," he said. "Its driven by a sense that HIV has become a chronic and treatable disease."

Perhaps that sense partially explains why, despite substantial increases in government spending on AIDS, the number of cases each year has been holding at about 40,000.

Total Federal expenditures for HIV/AIDS were estimated to be close to $15 billion last year. This represents almost a fivefold increase in the last dozen years. Still, critics assert much more needs to be set aside. Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark has pledged to increase spending for AIDS research, prevention and health care to $30 billion a year by 2008.

It may be tempting to think that tossing more dollars at a problem will cure it, but that rarely, if ever, is what happens. A lot of them are just squandered.

Federal dollars for AIDS are no exception. $100,000 was used to pay for a "drag queens ball" in New Jersey. $200,000 from one federally funded group was used for workshops described by a pro-homosexual newspaper as "hot, horny and healthy."

Some advocate abstinence and chastity as ways of reducing AIDS. In many quarters, such views are considered patently absurd.

Yet its interesting that the African nation thats had singular success in curtailing AIDS uses exactly that approach. Uganda has based its efforts in whats called the ABC model: Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms if A and B fail. Priority is placed on using the first two options if at all possible.

It doesnt appear as though Ugandans have been hit by "prevention fatigue." The HIV/AIDS rate has been cut in half in the last decade.

AIDS is a cultural as well as medical crisis. These days were most reluctant to "impose" our views on others. But the fact is that combating AIDS effectively will require a change of behavior by some individuals. This is the information that needs to be widely disseminated, not promises of a cure that may never be found.

The alternative is a continuing epidemic of heartbreaking proportions: Millions dying slow, painful deaths, their orphans struggling to survive. AIDS isnt caused by a lack of Federal funding or too few people wearing red ribbons.

Since there's an easy way to keep from getting the disease I find it hard to be very sympathetic to anyone other than those who contract it through a blood transfusion or a cut during surgery, in other words through no fault of their own.

Anyone who gets it from sharing needles or risky sexual practices is on their own as far as I'm concerned.

SHEESH....YES, what YOU said....suppose some of us decided that we all should be able to SPIT anywhere we wanted...(I was going to use something else as an example, but ...)..while others thought this "spitting" habit was not healthy...soooo...if abstinence of spitting reduces disease....and someone considers "such views are considered patently absurd" guess who's running the health of our culture? (DOES this make sense?)

5
posted on 12/02/2003 8:10:08 AM PST
by goodnesswins
(Aren't you glad you LIVE IN THE USA?)

"The reality is that the major causes of AIDS were, and continue to be, men having sex with men and people injecting themselves with drugs. In that order. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in 2001 fewer than 10,000 Americans contracted AIDS through heterosexual contact."

Perhaps that sense partially explains why, despite substantial increases in government spending on AIDS, the number of cases each year has been holding at about 40,000.

Wesley Clark has pledged to increase spending for AIDS research, prevention and health care to $30 billion a year by 2008.

Please check my math someone. I can't believe this number. Wesley Clark is proposing giving $750,000 for every infected AIDS individual in care and research funds per year. What??? What about breast cancer, heart disease, stroke, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's...? It appears that politically correct medical research has condemned the majority of sick Americans to near certain suffering and death. Thank you Democratic panderers.

The reality is that the major causes of AIDS were, and continue to be, men having sex with men and people injecting themselves with drugs. In that order. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in 2001 fewer than 10,000 Americans contracted AIDS through heterosexual contact.

It may be tempting to think that tossing more dollars at a problem will cure it, but that rarely, if ever, is what happens. A lot of them are just squandered.

Yet its interesting that the African nation thats had singular success in curtailing AIDS uses [abstinence as a preventative measure]

These days were most reluctant to "impose" our views on others. But the fact is that combating AIDS effectively will require a change of behavior by some individuals.

You make a very interesting point. However AIDS actually threatens all human life on the planet over the very long term. (The fewer humans there are, the greater the chance of species extinction.)

There are credible genetic researchers who theorize that humans once before declined in number (they guess ten thousand or fewer survived over the whole earth as the result of an ice age)and that humans today are descended from that small number. AIDS could do the same thing to the human species.

14
posted on 12/02/2003 9:15:11 AM PST
by NetValue
(They are not Americans, they're democrats and fools to boot.)

However AIDS actually threatens all human life on the planet over the very long term. (The fewer humans there are, the greater the chance of species extinction.)

Pure and utter nonsense! As we've seen in our country, the only people with AIDS are those who engage in non-monogamous heterosexual activity, IV drug users, and those who have sex or receive blood products with those in the previous two groups.

Outside of this nation, AIDS spreads due to heterosexual activity completely outside of our societal norms.

I will be more respectful than you were. You write: " the only people with AIDS are those who engage in non-monogamous heterosexual activity, IV drug users, and those who have sex or receive blood products with those in the previous two groups."

Diseases evolve, rather efficiently, and the HIV is no exception. In fact given its constant rate of change, you can almost predict that surviving variations will be seen. Please note; I am not talking about next year. We are talking many decades (ten year periods). Consider this AIDS has been with us for about 20 years. The infection rate has gone from a handful to an intercontinental epidemic spreading silently and growing by millions every year. Diseases do not spread in percentage increments. They spread by geometric progressions. If you see 20 million infected today, you can expect to see 40 million in 5 years, and 80 million in 10 years, and so on. I grant you that good behavior helps but diseases transmitted by body fluids will not be deterred by such moral behavior because people worldwide have poor hygiene. All living things, from viruses to humans propagate - life finds a way. The HIV will too. It is only a question of whether it will propagate faster than our ability to interdict it with a cure or an immunization.

17
posted on 12/02/2003 10:26:44 AM PST
by NetValue
(They are not Americans, they're democrats and fools to boot.)

The reality is that the major causes of AIDS were, and continue to be, men having sex with men and people injecting themselves with drugs.

That's only true in the first world. In the third world, various factors such as malnutrition, immune systems weakned by tropical diseases, female genital mutilation, and empidemics of other venerial diseases make HIV infection much easier through normal sexual intercourse.

Explain to me how AIDS will infect someone who only has monogamous heterosexual sex after marriage, does not use IV drugs, and does not receive blood products from someone who practices high-risk behaviors.

Sorry that you find my habit of referring to nonsense as "nonsense" but unless you believe that mosquitoes are going to start carrying AIDS, please explain how people who avoid that behaviors that spread AIDS are going to get it.

I can't help noticing that homosexuals are trying to be removed from the banned list and be allowed to donate blood. It would appear that they are angry about the fact that AIDS is NOT spreading to the heterosexual community. Since propaganda campaigns such as the one addressed in this campaign aren't working, perhaps they are looking for another avenue.

This is my impression...if someone can prove otherwise I would like to hear it.

It's my impression, too, but who's the last famous person to die of AIDS? Last I remember is Arthur Ashe in the mid 1990's. I can't believe that 100% of the Hollywood crowd is 100% faithful to the use of condoms or abstinence, maybe the drugs do effectively treat HIV the same way insulin treats, but does not cure, diabetes.

Eventually, diabetics get some final illness that might have arisen from improper management of the disease, or it might be from something that we all get from getting older. In either case, they get to live a near-normal lifespan. It might be that case with people who can afford (or be provided) cutting-edge drug therapies.

I would suppose that some of the drugs that were developed early on in AIDS research are past their patents, and can be made fairly cheaply on obsolete but functional equipment. Providing them to Africa could be done, but I favor letting private individuals make donations to this effect, if they so desire. It becomes a choice of "save the children" vs. "save their parents", for those inclined to pour money into Africa.

From what I have read, OTOH, third world deaths due to AIDS related diseases are often summarily judged to have been caused by HIV. The diseases encompassed in the AIDS Related Complex existed prior to HIV, but are now used as evidence of HIV infection. Under this assumption, it seems to me that the HIV infection rates in the third world are probably inflated. If I'm wrong on this I'd like to know.

IMHO the primary cause of HIV transmission (and many other nasty diseases) is and will remain, someone sticking their d*** somewhere where it doesn't belong, or someone sticking something into their body that doesn't belong there. Until that is generally understood, HIV infection rates will increase.

We can burn up an infinite amount of time and money facilitating the status quo while trying to abate the consequences. Taking a page from addiction recovery, this is known as "enabling" and its end result is disaster.

Last month a CDC official reported a significant jump in the number of AIDS cases among homosexual men. "To some extent, there is some prevention fatigue," he said. "Its driven by a sense that HIV has become a chronic and treatable disease."

well, yes. decent epidemiological explanation, but... oversimplified. 1. AIDS spreads fastest and hardest among certain demographics, and seems rather handicapped among others. The "easy-prey" demographics can be expected to be wiped out, or reduced in number from their present glut population. Once that happens, the population and range of the deadly pathogen will also decline. 2. long term, infectious diseases tend to mutate into less-efficient pathogens. Too efficient, and they kill their hosts off faster than their hosts can replace. AIDS/HIV is none-too-efficient, but it is still lethal in 10+/-5 years... ie: less than the average generation. 3. If (unlikely) it ever got bad enough - and you know this - draconian measures such as mandatory testing, publication of positive lists, and hard medical isolation would be imposed. We can do things today that were not dreampt of back in the plague years.

27
posted on 12/02/2003 11:42:43 AM PST
by King Prout
(...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)

What is even more amazing is that diseases that are not politically correct, that kill far more Americans, that are mostly unpreventable, get far less money.

From CNN in 1998:

In 1996, with more than a half million cancer deaths, the National Institutes of Health dedicated $2.5 billion to cancer research. With over 32,000 AIDS deaths, $1.4 billion went to AIDS research. And with more than three-quarters of a million heart disease fatalities, $851 million went to cardiovascular research.

A blue-ribbon panel appointed by the Institute of Medicine broke it down this way: For every $10 spent per cancer death on cancer research, $110 is spent per AIDS death on AIDS research and $3 is spent per heart disease death on heart disease research.

Wesley Clark is proposing giving $750,000 for every infected AIDS individual in care and research funds per year./

We need to keep in mind that there are already several hundred thousand Americans with AIDS, so I think they'd need to be included with the new 40,000 each year. Anyway you cut it, it's a disproportionate share of health dollars,

*shrugging* yes, and? I said certain demographics are being hit fast and hard. when these areas, and the cultures which make them easy prey, are denuded of populace, AIDS will taper off rather sharply. what did you think I meant?

34
posted on 12/02/2003 2:32:43 PM PST
by King Prout
(...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)

Actually, it is important to note that many third world "AIDS" cases have not been tested for HIV - it costs money which they don't have (or went into a kleptocrat's bank account). If the patient shows a combination of symptoms, they call it AIDS... Sort of like a school calling a kid ADHD to get additional federal money. It may not be nearly as prevalent in Africa folks think.

35
posted on 12/02/2003 2:36:35 PM PST
by Little Ray
(When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!)

Actually, it is important to note that many third world "AIDS" cases have not been tested for HIV - it costs money which they don't have (or went into a kleptocrat's bank account). If the patient shows a combination of symptoms, they call it AIDS... Sort of like a school calling a kid ADHD to get additional federal money. It may not be nearly as prevalent in Africa as some folks think.

36
posted on 12/02/2003 2:36:49 PM PST
by Little Ray
(When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!)

AIDS is a cultural as well as medical crisis. These days were most reluctant to "impose" our views on others. But the fact is that combating AIDS effectively will require a change of behavior by some individuals.

AIDS is first and foremost a cultural crisis. Yes, it is true that in Africa AIDS is spread more by hetero contact. That is because promiscuous heteros provide the HIV organism the best opportunity to replicate and spread.

Cultural mores are such that many African wives cannot conceive of saying 'no' to her husband even if she knows that he's been unfaithful and likely to be HIV +. Then there's the spectacle of the superstition that raping a virgin will cleanse an infected man of the virus, resulting in female INFANTS being raped and infected.

In the West, it is male homosexuals who are the most promiscuous, thus providing the organism the best host population. Amongst our cultural mores that mitigate against AIDS containment: - misplaced 'compassion' for those infected impels us to provide medicine prolonging the life of those who are infected. These then allow them to infect more people. - misplaced concern for the infected's rights mitigating against quarantine.

If it were not for certain behaviors, AIDS would have died out where it originated with its original hosts. If AIDS is cured and the causal behavior persists, a new disease will emerge to exploit the opportunity.

This notion of being reluctant to 'impose values' is absurd. It assumes that WE are the ones who make the rules. We don't. Those rules are made by a higher authority which [or whom] cannot be tricked, cajoled, intimidated etc.

We humans are no less subject to the Nature's Laws than any other living thing. Our culture is the means by which we define ourselves and demonstrate our worthiness to be here. If we have a culture that is infected by 'values' that mitigate against survival, we will perish and won't be missed... period.

Here's just a single example of an opinion columnin support of homosexuals giving blood.

Turning away needed blood An American Red Cross commercial states that every few seconds, there is someone in need of a blood donation. But what the commercial doesn't say is that if you are a homosexual man, they don't want your donation. The Red Cross does not allow any man who has had homosexual sex since 1977 to donate blood.

They are refusing donations from individuals who want to help on the basis of their sexual orientation. The American Red Cross created the policy because men who engage in homosexual sex are at a higher risk for transmitting diseases.

The Center for Disease Control reports 40,000 new cases of HIV in the United States annually. Men are more likely to contract HIV than women, and the center estimates that about 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex.

The statistics do show a high instance of HIV being transmitted through homosexual sex. In that respect, the Red Cross does have a valid point. It appears that homosexual men are more likely than straight men and women to have contracted HIV.

But this does not mean that it is acceptable for the Red Cross to refuse blood donations from men who have engaged in homosexual sex. They would never think of refusing blood donations based on ethnicity, although there might be a higher instance of HIV amongst a certain ethnic group.

Of the total number of HIV positive men, 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic and a small percentage are members of other racial or ethnic groups. Should we then bar black men from donating?

The general public would be outraged if blood from a certain ethnic group was refused. Yet somehow, the Red Cross has deemed it appropriate to refuse blood from gay men. If the Red Cross refuses to discriminate according to race, it should not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

This statute is discriminatory as well as being outdated. Homosexual men are barred from donating if they've had sex with another man in the last 20 years, but this time period is ridiculously long-term. If a man engaged in homosexual intercourse over 20 years ago, HIV would have shown up in his blood long before now. Donor blood is carefully screened. If HIV was present in the blood, it would show up in the first screening. [NOTE: ever hear of a false negative result? -- FormerLib]

Instead of refusing donations from men who have engaged in homosexual sex, the Red Cross should simply red-flag the blood, and keep it longer for extra testing. The Red Cross could do this for all donations they feel might be questionable, such as blood from donors who engage in unprotected sex or intravenous drug use.

By red-flagging the blood, the Red Cross could simultaneously protect the recipients of donated blood and put a stop to blatant discrimination.

TUEBINGEN, June 16, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A study by researchers at the University of Tuebingen in Germany has found that anal sex, both homosexual and heterosexual, is the second largest cause of HIV transmission in Africa. Transmission in medical settings, such as through dirty needles, is listed as the primary cause, says the study published in the current edition of The Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Aids.

In a finding which has HIV/AIDS activists on edge, the researchers, say vaginal transmission of HIV is a very distant third compared to medical transmission and transmission through anal sex.

The report's author Dr. Stuart Brody, of the Institute of Medical Psychology and Behavioural Neurobiology, said people in Africa need to be told that anal sex poses a greater risk of transmitting the Aids virus.

African medical workers are taught (and paid) to emphasize reproductive health procedures (contraception, sterilization, and abortion), often to the near exclusion of primary health care. Poorly equipped clinics are kept well-supplied with Depo-Provera, IUDs, and condoms. According to Dr. Stephen Karanja, the former Secretary of the Kenyan Medical Association, Thousands of the Kenyan people will die of malaria whose treatment costs a few cents, in health facilities whose stores are stacked to the roof with millions of dollars worth of pills, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera, most of which are supplied with American money.(3)

Is it mere coincidence that the same groups that are targeted for invasive procedures are disproportionately afflicted with AIDS? We think not. Women and girls account for such a high percentage of HIV/AIDS victims in Africa because they are infected during procedures designed to disable their reproductive systems and prevent them from conceiving or bearing children.

This study shows how politically agendized Western aid is targeted at facilitating 'safe' sex rather than teaching abstinence and chastity, which is far more effective.

Extrapolate the 2% condom failure rate that the CDC touts. Take a 1000 member American high school. If 1/3 are sexually active and have 2 'incidents' a week, the failure rate adds up to 180 failures in a year. Even at the 0.1% figure that is sometimes cited the annual figure still adds up to 9. Is that an acceptable risk?

Africans join Westerners in being lied to that it is possible to have 'safe sex' with someone who is HIV+. Most believe this to be true when in fact it is an outrageous lie.

One thing that is not addressed sufficiently is the fact that women are biologically more vulnerable to the transmission of STDs like HIV. The 'catcher' is going to be more vulnerable than the 'pitcher,' vaginal or anal, hetero or homo.

None of this undermines the main premise in #37; behavior -- specifically promiscuous behavior -- is the initial cause of the AIDS outbreak. Changing this behavior is the only way to stop it.

Yet its interesting that the African nation thats had singular success in curtailing AIDS uses exactly that approach. Uganda has based its efforts in whats called the ABC model: Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms if A and B fail. Priority is placed on using the first two options if at all possible.

In additiion to the lack of actual valid,verifiable statistics it seems that Africans no longer are dying of malnutrition,malaria,cholera,T.B. and the myriad of other "wasting" diseases that were so prevalent in Africa until ten years ago. No, now every African that dies is ticked as an AIDS death.How can people be seo gulllible?

Another factor involving AIDS in Africa is the fact that frequently little clinics will immunize,innoculate and/ or vaccinate large numbers of villagers with the same needle.

AIDS is big business,and more than any other is able to realize huge profits and receive large sums of money from the public both through public monies collected through taxes as well as the increased insurance payments the ordinary citizen has to pay for private insurance. Thanks in a good part for the big corporations insuring "significant others".

Yes, the number of aids cases in the third world is inflated, but even if you allow for that, the number of cases is just too high for it to be accounted for by homosexual and IV drug use transmission.

They would never think of refusing blood donations based on ethnicity, although there might be a higher instance of HIV amongst a certain ethnic group.

Actually, they do. If you ever lived in the UK or spent more than a certain number of weeks there, you can't donate blood. The same is true for a number of African countries. I'm a regular blood donor, so I know first hand.

None of this undermines the main premise in #37; behavior -- specifically promiscuous behavior -- is the initial cause of the AIDS outbreak. Changing this behavior is the only way to stop it.

I hope I didn't come across as trying to undermine your premise. Promiscuous behavior does indeed help spread AIDS that much more quickly, but it's important to note that AIDS targets homosexual behavior. Abstinence is the cure for AIDS. As you said, condoms aren't worth the risk.

50
posted on 12/02/2003 10:17:35 PM PST
by scripter
(Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.